There is none.A minor repair IS a counterplan because it is a different course of action than the one advocated by the affirmative. Thus, the affirmative can/should refute it along the normal lines of refuting any regular counterplan.

Ask drew and Isaiah to give you some good examples of how this has works in the round (Josiah had this come up in Nat's a few years ago, I believe??)

_________________God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.- Saint Augustine

1. Resolutions typically call for aff to reform a subset of the status quo significantly.2. There exists a framework specifying that if the counterplan is topical, then it counts as support for aff. Some people operate by this framework.3. Consider a counterplan that changes the subset of the status quo named in the resolution. In order to claim that the counterplan is not topical, neg might argue that the counterplan repairs the status quo slightly instead of reforming it significantly. Neg argues that this proves the resolution false because a significant reform is unnecessary.

1. Resolutions typically call for aff to reform a subset of the status quo significantly.2. There exists a framework specifying that if the counterplan is topical, then it counts as support for aff. Some people operate by this framework.3. Consider a counterplan that changes the subset of the status quo named in the resolution. In order to claim that the counterplan is not topical, neg might argue that the counterplan repairs the status quo slightly instead of reforming it significantly. Neg argues that this proves the resolution false because a significant reform is unnecessary.

So the "repair" refers either to repairing the status quo or to repairing the plan. It's one of those annoying dual meaning terms in debate.

Either way, the moral of the story is: don't use the term "minor repair" because counterplan topicality is irrelevant and because the more readily recognized term for a counterplan that incorporates the aff plan is "plan-inclusive counterplan (PIC)".

The term is still around from the need-plan days of policy debate, 1960s and before, when the affirmative's burden was to show a compelling need for change and a major systemic reform in response to that compelling need. If the negative successfully argued that a small-scale correction would eliminate most or all of the harm, then the affirmative had failed to meet its burden.

Resolved: you should have surgery.

Harm: You have very high blood pressure. Potential impacts include heart attack and stroke.Inherency: You have atherosclerosis, so it's not going away and some sort of intervention is necessary.Solvency: An angioplasty can widen your narrowed arteries and relieve your high blood pressure.

Minor repair: Your high blood pressure can be controlled with diet, medication, lifestyle changes and biofeedback.

Today we'd require negatives to make explicit the risks of surgery in the form of an evidenced, defended net benefit. Back then, they skipped those steps and just voted negative if minor change was sufficient.

I don't they're quite as outdated in the high school homeschool realm of debate. In fact, they're probably more common than you think.

Honestly, nearly every time I've seen them used (NCFCA/STOA) it's rarely introduced as a "minor repair." Usually in an extension of alternate causality, negative teams will mention that when alternate causes are present, alternate solutions would probably be a better fit to solve the problem. This fits the definition of the minor repair, but no one calls it that, it's not flowed that way, and in the end, it's flowed as an impact to solvency. I'm sure when you enter the realm of collegiate debate, that standard changes simply because your judges will change. But if you're looking for a high school league answer, that's typically what you'll encounter.

By all means, feel free to use the terms - but if you're going to name it, then you've got to explain it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and the judge's time just trying to be technical.

_________________I have sometimes believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast...

I don't they're quite as outdated in the high school homeschool realm of debate. In fact, they're probably more common than you think.

Honestly, nearly every time I've seen them used (NCFCA/STOA) it's rarely introduced as a "minor repair." Usually in an extension of alternate causality, negative teams will mention that when alternate causes are present, alternate solutions would probably be a better fit to solve the problem. This fits the definition of the minor repair, but no one calls it that, it's not flowed that way, and in the end, it's flowed as an impact to solvency. I'm sure when you enter the realm of collegiate debate, that standard changes simply because your judges will change. But if you're looking for a high school league answer, that's typically what you'll encounter.

By all means, feel free to use the terms - but if you're going to name it, then you've got to explain it. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and the judge's time just trying to be technical.

I've learned never to use debate lingo. So where did the stock issues go? Oh right, he's calling them the four burdens of the Affirmative team

Not mutually exclusive; competitive. It has to be a reason to reject the Aff's plan in its current form. That doesn't necessarily mean it's mutually exclusive; it often just means "this is a much simpler and easier way to accomplish the advantages, so doing the Aff plan as well would be pointless and wasteful."

So... what happens when a common, untopical case is run? Is running a minor repair against it a bad idea because you not only have to prove that your minor repair would work, but that the Aff plan is untopical?

Here is what I was told a minor repair was. A minor repair is a hypothetical course of action that is insignificant that proves the res wrong. (Example: Murderers not being punished. Aff plan X. Minor repair is enforcing the law. Because there is a law in place all we need to do is enforce it.) All you are doing is showing how the res isn't necessary to fix the problem.

Here is what I was told a minor repair was. A minor repair is a hypothetical course of action that is insignificant that proves the res wrong. (Example: Murderers not being punished. Aff plan X. Minor repair is enforcing the law. Because there is a law in place all we need to do is enforce it.) All you are doing is showing how the res isn't necessary to fix the problem.

That's the traditional definition. However, I take issue with the phrase "hypothetical course of action." If a minor repair is merely hypothetical, it cannot prove that the aff plan produces a sub-optimal outcome. As a judge, if you presented a "hypothetical minor repair" to me, I would think "yeah, that's nice, but nobody's advocating doing that." I have no way to take the argument "hey, there could be a better way" into account when I'm making a decision.

In order for a minor repair to have any effect on my decision (under my paradigm, that is), it must be advocated or be accompanied by reasoning proving that there exists a chance that it might actually happen. If it's advocated, it might as well be called a counterplan.

Here is what I was told a minor repair was. A minor repair is a hypothetical course of action that is insignificant that proves the res wrong. (Example: Murderers not being punished. Aff plan X. Minor repair is enforcing the law. Because there is a law in place all we need to do is enforce it.) All you are doing is showing how the res isn't necessary to fix the problem.

That's the traditional definition. However, I take issue with the phrase "hypothetical course of action." If a minor repair is merely hypothetical, it cannot prove that the aff plan produces a sub-optimal outcome. As a judge, if you presented a "hypothetical minor repair" to me, I would think "yeah, that's nice, but nobody's advocating doing that." I have no way to take the argument "hey, there could be a better way" into account when I'm making a decision.

In order for a minor repair to have any effect on my decision (under my paradigm, that is), it must be advocated or be accompanied by reasoning proving that there exists a chance that it might actually happen. If it's advocated, it might as well be called a counterplan.

The whole point of a MR is to prove that there is a better way to solve X, while, at the same time, proving the resolution false.

In all respect, under your paradigm- if an inefficient bill was proposed in congress, they would say "well, it's all we've got, let's pass it!" No, that makes no sense. If a Neg team can show that there is a better solution, it only makes sense not to pass Aff's plan.

Here is what I was told a minor repair was. A minor repair is a hypothetical course of action that is insignificant that proves the res wrong. (Example: Murderers not being punished. Aff plan X. Minor repair is enforcing the law. Because there is a law in place all we need to do is enforce it.) All you are doing is showing how the res isn't necessary to fix the problem.

That's the traditional definition. However, I take issue with the phrase "hypothetical course of action." If a minor repair is merely hypothetical, it cannot prove that the aff plan produces a sub-optimal outcome. As a judge, if you presented a "hypothetical minor repair" to me, I would think "yeah, that's nice, but nobody's advocating doing that." I have no way to take the argument "hey, there could be a better way" into account when I'm making a decision.

In order for a minor repair to have any effect on my decision (under my paradigm, that is), it must be advocated or be accompanied by reasoning proving that there exists a chance that it might actually happen. If it's advocated, it might as well be called a counterplan.

The whole point of a MR is to prove that there is a better way to solve X, while, at the same time, proving the resolution false.

In all respect, under your paradigm- if an inefficient bill was proposed in congress, they would say "well, it's all we've got, let's pass it!" No, that makes no sense. If a Neg team can show that there is a better solution, it only makes sense not to pass Aff's plan.

I realize this is 20 days later, but I feel I should bump and address this.

The issue here is advocacy: are you advocating something or are you just saying that it's a possibility? For instance, take your Congress example. You spend three million dollars on flyswatters for the Oval Office. I say we just shut the window. I'm *advocating* shutting the window. I'm not just saying "we could hypothetically close the window", no, I'm saying we should do it. That's the crucial difference. Should the affirmative be responsible for defending against an argument that the negative is not advocating?

The issue here is advocacy: are you advocating something or are you just saying that it's a possibility? For instance, take your Congress example. You spend three million dollars on flyswatters for the Oval Office. I say we just shut the window. I'm *advocating* shutting the window. I'm not just saying "we could hypothetically close the window", no, I'm saying we should do it. That's the crucial difference.

Is there really a difference, however?

Remember, the resolution merely asks the Affirmative to prove the need for a reform. In a sense, the Aff plan is just a possibility that shows that we "should" do (whatever the resolution is.) So are counterplans and minor repairs. The fact that the Aff plan demonstrates a reason to adopt the resolution is not necessarily contingent upon whether the plan is "advocated" or merely "presented".

By way of example:

Resolution: Resolved, that we should get Mexican food.Aff plan: The food at Trujillo's is awesome and solves our hunger. We should go there.

The first sentence of the Aff plan alone is enough to prove the resolution true (barring countering arguments, of course) - if Trujillo's is awesome, then yes, we should get Mexican food. The second sentence (the advocacy part) merely clarifies the Affirmative's position. Thus, in this example, there is no difference between an "advocated" plan and a "hypothetical" plan. It is the facts that prove the resolution true, not the advocacy.

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this - my own opinions are muddled - but food for thought. (haha, food, geddit?)

Remember, the resolution merely asks the Affirmative to prove the need for a reform. In a sense, the Aff plan is just a possibility that shows that we "should" do (whatever the resolution is.) So are counterplans and minor repairs. The fact that the Aff plan demonstrates a reason to adopt the resolution is not necessarily contingent upon whether the plan is "advocated" or merely "presented".

For my benefit (because I rewrote this post three times before deleting it all and starting over), I'm going to rephrase what you said. Hopefully it'll be accurate-- let me know if it's not.The aff's goal is to uphold the resolution.The aff upholds the resolution by proving a need for reform.The negative's goal is to show the aff has not proved the need for reform.The negative can show this by presenting hypothetical policy changes with which reform is not necessary.

My primary issue with the aforementioned logic stems from my position on fiat. Basically, advocacy grants fiat. Fiat is created because we want to debate about the actual issues at stake-- not the political possibility of X policy occurring. If there's no advocacy (e.g. if the team is not actually defending the merits of X policy), then there's no reason to grant fiat. If there's no reason to grant fiat, then we shouldn't do so because fiat contorts the world, which is a bad thing unless there is some legitimate reason to do so.

Thus, because a non-advocated hypothetical MR has no fiat, all you're saying is that it's a possibility in the status quo-- not an actuality. The affirmative still has proven a need for change because we can't assume the minor repair would go into effect without fiat, and the neg would need to advocate for it-- not just propose it hypothetically.

(I think I finally explained it properly, the fourth time I rewrote this post... but if it doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll give it another shot.)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum